This is an outside submission that Calitics recieved, it is A press release from Jim Brandt

JIM BRANDT RESPONDS TO VOTER INTIMIDATION EFFORT IN 47TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Huntington Beach, Calif., Oct. 19, 2006—Jim Brandt, Democratic candidate for the 46th Congressional District, expressed disappointment today after reports that the Republican candidate in the 47th Congressional District race was allegedly involved in a voter intimidation effort. As the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register reported, more than 14,000 voters with Hispanic last names received a letter in English and Spanish saying that immigrants cannot vote. The Spanish version actually says, “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.” This assertion is false. Immigrants who are naturalized citizens can vote. The letter further tried to intimidate legal voters by alleging that “the state has developed a tracking system that will allow the names of Latino voters to be handed over to anti-immigrant groups.” This is patently false.

This disgusting letter is an obvious and reprehensible attempt to suppress the vote among legal, naturalized Hispanic citizens.

“I join the Democratic Party of Orange County and its Chair, Frank Barbaro, and Vice Chair, Rima Nashashibi, in calling for the withdrawal of Republican candidate Tan Nguyen from the race in the 47th Congressional District if he or anyone with his campaign is involved in this despicable act,” said Jim Brandt. “All voters in the 47th District deserve respect. This letter clearly demonstrates a basic lack of respect for voters and for the democratic process.”

Brandt continued, “This incident proves the importance of the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. This critical legislation protects all voters’ right to vote. The historic benefit of bringing more Americans into the political process and protecting them from that right being denied is immeasurable, so I was disappointed in Rep. Rohrabacher’s vote against renewal.”

“Rep. Rohrabacher must make a statement about this incident. I also call on him to join his fellow Republicans in calling for Republican Nguyen’s withdrawal from the race in the 47th Congressional District.”

I (Brian) will be using this for submissions that I receive over the series of tubes. I was sent an Internet with the following story.  I have not edited it in any way. I have not confirmed this story, so make of it what you will.

Subject: Options for Recovery Board Member protested by students for buying student votes with free booze at Blakes on Telegraph 7-10  pm October 18 2006

Options for Recovery Board Member George Beier did not fool many students last night with his attempts to buy student votes with booze.  Parents, students, and neighbors protested Beiers free alchohol for votes outside of Blakes on Telegraph last night.

Across town at the UCB campus,  candidate Beier ducked out of the ASUC candidate debate midpoint before students could ask him hard hitting questions, leaving ten year incumbent Berkley City Councilman Kriss Worthington alone to talk to students about their concerns.

UCB police and Berkeley Police have just been given money by the State of Calfornia to combat the serious alcohol related problems on and near the UCB campus.

Beier’s judgment may be flawed if he thinks that a member of the Board of Directors of Options for Recovery should give free booze to UCB students to buy their votes.

Options should take a serious look at how Beier has used being on the board of Options on his candidate statement online to show how he understands Berkeley alcohol and drug problems, then in a hypocritical move gives free beer to students to buy their votes. His myspace.com/votegeorge website shows him with a wall of hooka marijuana pipes behind him in one photo.  What messages about drug and alchohol use is this candidate sending our youth as his website completely pinpoints UCB students as his voter targets.  UCB students in photos used to supposedly show support for the candidate -on the candidates website- are angered that their photographs are used without their knowledge or permission.

Does Options for Recovery need to be used to further the political ambitions of a candidate?

Do the parents who have such high hopes for their children want to have a candidate pushing free booze on their children to further his political ambitions and push the agenda of big money interests?

Is there a California State Law, regarding Privacy Rights of Minors, preventing photographs of minors be made public without consent? Is this under the Welfare Code Child Abuse statutes?

Who gave candidate Beiers campaign money to buy booze for UCB students to buy their votes?

Respectfully,

Patty Pink (mother of students attending college in Berkeley)